Alcohol dragster?

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Have you ever tried to stop a dragster really quickly from 150MPH or more without a parachute? You have more than enough brakes to stop the tire already on just about any modern dragster. The problem is when you try to stop the car quickly, the back tires will quickly begin to bounce, the more brake you apply, the more, harder, and higher it bounces. I've seen a dragster with 13x31 tires get 3 feet off the ground trying to stop quickly at 140MPH.

You could put another 4 piston caliper on each rear wheel with a 12" rotor. It would not matter, you cannot use that much brake. The back tires will go 3 feet in the air.

The front tires on dragsters and funny cars are designed to steer the car, not designed to exert or withstand a great deal of braking force. They have neither the contact area nor the strength necessary to generate any real stopping force. The front suspension and the frames are not designed to withstand that sort of force either.

You simply cannot just hang some great big brakes on a car without first designing the car and the tires to use the brakes. Drag cars and the tires used on them simply are not designed for big brakes and the forces they generate.

Formula 1 Brakes:





Dragster Rear Brakes:

[Floyd Staggs]

Okay then, we can't put bigger brakes on them, we can't put a cable catch on them, we can't put 4 parachutes on them, we can't use ABS but if I remember correctly a big time pro was using ABS as a traction control device a couple of years ago, we can't slow them down, so, I repeat, cut the distance and give them 320' more stopping distance. If they make it across the board everybody will be the same.
JMHO

[Alan Roehrich]

Actually, Floyd, they can substantially improve the track shutdown area, and solve a lot of problems for everyone.

NHRA is simply looking for a way to pass the cost on to the racers, because they don't want to spend their money (it really belongs to the members) and they can't get the tracks to spend their money because NHRA is already cutting their throats.

So they tell the racers to go buy new brakes. That's right, they told the alcohol racers to go buy carbon fiber rotors if they don't have them. They already changed the parachute mount spec, and they're looking at adding more to it. Don't get me wrong, those are improvements to the cars, for safety. They're also going to mandate a cut off switch for alcohol just as the fuel cars have now.

But NHRA is not spending any money on it. That's why they like it. That's why they like the 1000' solution, too.

The "pit" and the net can be improved. But Graham Light says "we've used that stuff for years, and it's always worked". Well, the racers have used their brakes for years, and they've always worked, too. And even NHRA says the alcohol cars have not gotten much faster in 5 years.

NHRA could, with their resources, set out an open bid for a contract to fix the tracks. They could easily finance it. Why don't they? NASCAR spent millions of dollars on testing, and then went about implementing what they learned. NHRA could accept bids from contractors on a new net system, and a new shutdown area. I'd bet Jim Head would be one of the first in line, he probably has a few things in mind already. NHRA could also help the tracks get financing, and offer them contracts to guarantee they'd have enough races to pay off the loan.

But they're not doing it. They continue to put cars on poorly prepared tracks, with safety systems that have not been improved in decades. They make the racers buy new belts, new jackets, new pants, new helmets, and have their cars certified and re-certified. They spend the racers' money, they spend the track owners' money, but they're not spending theirs.

[Greg Hill]

Alan, it's because they are putting the money in their own pocket.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Greg Hill

Alan, it's because they are putting the money in their own pocket.

Rhetorical question, Greg.

[Floyd Staggs]

Alan, I agree with all of that but the cars are getting faster and faster all the time. I remember when I ran stock back in the early 60's I had a fast stocker in the low 12's, high 11's. Top fuel was barely 200. Now you have comp cars over 200 and stockers in the 9's. It's all relative, I know.
Some tracks don't have the real estate to expand their shutdown area. I like 1320 racing. But terminal velocity has gotten to the point it's almost out of control.
The contest is an accelaration contest, the one that accelerates the fastest to a given point is the winner. Does it matter what that given point is?
JMHO

[Eric Merryfield]

Originally Posted by Greg Hill

Alan, it's because they are putting the money in their own pocket.

I just watched the video for the first time and am stunned at how tight the net was....He should have walked away. Such a tragedy. To rapid of a deceleration will always result in heartbreak.

Perhaps something that the stunt drivers use would work.

A soft net followed by row upon row upon row of free used up slicks, with perhaps another net and if all else fails a water barrier. Car will be trashed, but who cares, a soft landing is better than no landing at all.

You could also try and engineer cockpit deceleration in addition. Remote activated airbags, or sensor based like in street cars. There must be a Physics and mechanical engineering guru out there!

[Alan Roehrich]

Floyd, yes, it does matter. For a number of reasons. Especially the point about who is tasked with bearing the burden. Shorten the distance to 1000'? Now we all have to go change our gearing, among other things. That's just NHRA placing the burden on us, again, to prevent them from having to actually address the problem.

Stock and Super Stock aren't really likely to gain much from 320' more shut down. The shutdown area is a concern for us only when we have no brakes at all, situations like Woodro and Gainesville, or Pete at Orlando. It won't make much difference. We don't gain that much speed in that 320'.

But to keep NHRA from spending money and addressing the problem, we'd be tasked with spending our money, and changing our cars.

Where does it stop? When do we stop spending money so they don't have to and they can make more? All of our costs have gone up, the purse has remained the same, and the contingency payout has dropped 50%.

Switching to 1000' will cost us all more, again. And it was supposed to be a temporary fix to begin with. It doesn't seem to be so temporary, does it? They got their temporary fix, but they are not working on a permanent fix. Because it would cost them money.

No, it's time for NHRA to step up and pay their share. They need to address the problem on their end. And they need to make a habit of it.

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by SSDiv6

Ed, did you read my previous post? Being selective on your posts to create more bashing? I do not work for the government.

No you don't,BUT your company,as you said yourself,has govt. contracts.Who finances
the government?Last time I looked we all are contributors to the kitty.How many of your 841 posts were made from your WORK computer?
You said yourself you post on a computer from your work location.
Sometimes knowledge and the perception of knowledge is better kept to ones self.
Especially on a site like this one,where there are more "experts" and Rhodes Scholars
than at any major think tank in the universe.

[Floyd Staggs]

You're right, I didn't think of the cost to the other racers to change their program. I was just thinking about the overall picture and the length of the race and the reduction of speed.
I guess there is no cover all answer.

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Floyd, yes, it does matter. For a number of reasons. Especially the point about who is tasked with bearing the burden. Shorten the distance to 1000'? Now we all have to go change our gearing, among other things. That's just NHRA placing the burden on us, again, to prevent them from having to actually address the problem.

Stock and Super Stock aren't really likely to gain much from 320' more shut down. The shutdown area is a concern for us only when we have no brakes at all, situations like Woodro and Gainesville, or Pete at Orlando. It won't make much difference. We don't gain that much speed in that 320'.

But to keep NHRA from spending money and addressing the problem, we'd be tasked with spending our money, and changing our cars.

Where does it stop? When do we stop spending money so they don't have to and they can make more? All of our costs have gone up, the purse has remained the same, and the contingency payout has dropped 50%.

Switching to 1000' will cost us all more, again. And it was supposed to be a temporary fix to begin with. It doesn't seem to be so temporary, does it? They got their temporary fix, but they are not working on a permanent fix. Because it would cost them money.

No, it's time for NHRA to step up and pay their share. They need to address the problem on their end. And they need to make a habit of it.